Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

Nani Nana said:
I don't think Putin annexed Crimea with a view to launch a full-scale invasion eight years later, no.

Crimea was not "designed" by Putin, there is widespread pro-Russian sentiment from locals in that region which led to its annexation.

Going back to your original complaint, my opinion is that if the West pushes people's right to "self-determination" in other parts of the world, it has to accept that Russia does the same where its interests are concerned.
Click to expand...
Why do you single out Crimea when there was also Russian military in Eastern Ukraine since 2014?

Lemoor said:
You know how this referendum looked like?
Click to expand...
Nah, the Russian sentiment was always strong here. Every time I got there (pre-2014, obviously), most locals, with the exception of tatars in Bakhchysaray, wanted to talk to me about how they all want to join Russia and how great of a leader Putin is (and a lot of polls showed the same sentiment). That doesn’t make that referendum — or the annexation — legit or, god forbid, ethical, it was a brutal power play by a country with no regards for the sovereignty of their neighbour or for the international laws… but the idea of rejoining Russia had been very strong in Crimea for a long time (opposed to, say, Donbass, where it was very much a marginal idea).

And yeah, as @AlfonsoAlves says, the referendum numbers were obviously made up and had nothing to do with reality.
 
AfonsoAlves said:
This is not true.

There were various polls conducted from 2004-2014 which all had the number hover between 30% to 48%.

97% is absurd. This level of consensus is unprecedented.

Also, if you want to have an independence referendum, do it through legal channels. Falklands managed to do it. Don't go into foreign sovereign land with soldiers, capture the governmental HQ, bribe Admirals to defect and then declare a referendum. How are you okay with this?
Click to expand...

I admire your patience. This guy comes back into this thread every couple of months to parrot Russian lines. Then he’ll get called out on it and leave for a while.
 
NicolaSacco said:
I admire your patience. This guy comes back into this thread every couple of months to parrot Russian lines. Then he’ll get called out on it and leave for a while.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, I will definitely be back in a couple of months.
 
Kremlin-occupied Ukraine is now a totalitarian hell
“Kiril”, a Ukrainian agent in occupied territory reached by phone, says that “this is a prison society” because the fear of being denounced forces everyone to keep their views to themselves. To be without a Russian passport these days is “like being a refugee in your own land”. Important jobs are almost all held by Russians. Anyone with pro-Ukrainian views fears being sent “to the basement”, an expression for Russia’s network of detention and “filtration” camps.
Click to expand...
All traces of Ukraine are being expunged. Schools have switched to the Russian curriculum, and Russian youth and paramilitary organisations work in the territories. Repression combined with Russification aims to transform the social and political fabric of the territories, says Nikolay Petrov, the author of a new report for the German Institute for International and Security Affairs.
Click to expand...
https://www.economist.com/europe/2024/11/10/kremlin-occupied-ukraine-is-now-a-totalitarian-hell
 
Nani Nana said:
It is too easy to dismiss a referendum as unconstitutional when the outcome does not suit you. The reality is most Crimeans wanted to join Russia.
Click to expand...

Ahh yes, the referendum at gun point immediately following an armed invasion.

Only a few rogue states recognize it as legitimate. The rest of the free world see it for what it is - a forced seizure of land following an invasion by another country.
 
Raoul said:
Ahh yes, the referendum at gun point immediately following an armed invasion.

Only a few rogue states recognize it as legitimate. The rest of the free world see it for what it is - a forced seizure of land following an invasion by another country.
Click to expand...

Most Crimeans wanted to join Russia, regardless of the referendum and still want to be part of Russia today.

As for the free world's view, as @DT12 correctly points out it is very much double standards.
 
Nani Nana said:
Most Crimeans wanted to join Russia, regardless of the referendum and still want to be part of Russia today.

As for the free world's view, as @DT12 correctly points out it is very much double standards.
Click to expand...

Sorry are you really basing your views on people you talked to at a Russian holiday camp in Crimea as opposed to actual polls?
 
Nani Nana said:
Most Crimeans wanted to join Russia, regardless of the referendum and still want to be part of Russia today.

As for the free world's view, as @DT12 correctly points out it is very much double standards.
Click to expand...

I don’t deny that many Crimeans are amenable to Russia. I’ve been there and have spent a lot of time in southern Ukraine, and have a good sense of public sentiment in the area. That’s a far cry from invading Crimea and forcing locals into a referendum in which the option of “No” (Crimea should not become part of Russia) was NOT even an option. That’s why it’s internationally viewed as a sham, just like every election Putin has ever been involved in.
 
harms said:
Nah, the Russian sentiment was always strong here. Every time I got there (pre-2014, obviously), most locals, with the exception of tatars in Bakhchysaray, wanted to talk to me about how they all want to join Russia and how great of a leader Putin is (and a lot of polls showed the same sentiment). That doesn’t make that referendum — or the annexation — legit or, god forbid, ethical, it was a brutal power play by a country with no regards for the sovereignty of their neighbour or for the international laws… but the idea of rejoining Russia had been very strong in Crimea for a long time (opposed to, say, Donbass, where it was very much a marginal idea).
Click to expand...
That's fair. I'm not suggesting that Russian option would never win, if it was done in a proper way. I just find using this referendum as a proxy for Crimean people exercising their right to self-determination absolutely bizarre, bordering on bad faith.
 
almost all wars would end today, if actual moral considerations were put before financial ones.
is putin evil, yes. he has the blood of almost a million of his countrymen on his hands. are the west especially disingenuous about their approach to ukraine, of course they are, on one hand we issue sanctions, but on the other then do nothing to stop the Indians and other Brick nations going around them and keeping the russians afloat. and of course the 10s of billions being 'donated' to Ukraine, arent actually going to them, but lining the pockets of our own industrial-military complex.

much like turkey and israel. Erdogan can say what he likes, but hes quite happy to let the azerbaijanis supply israel with a decent chunk of their Oil (using turkish infrastructure).

reason i say this, it kind of makes arguments about the moral aspects moot.
 
Superden said:
almost all wars would end today, if actual moral considerations were put before financial ones.
is putin evil, yes. he has the blood of almost a million of his countrymen on his hands. are the west especially disingenuous about their approach to ukraine, of course they are, on one hand we issue sanctions, but on the other then do nothing to stop the Indians and other Brick nations going around them and keeping the russians afloat. and of course the 10s of billions being 'donated' to Ukraine, arent actually going to them, but lining the pockets of our own industrial-military complex.

much like turkey and israel. Erdogan can say what he likes, but hes quite happy to let the azerbaijanis supply israel with a decent chunk of their Oil (using turkish infrastructure).

reason i say this, it kind of makes arguments about the moral aspects moot.
Click to expand...

This particular war would end immediately if Putin simply left Ukraine.
 
Superden said:
followed by a demilitrised Ukraine and russia keeping the bits it likes / occupies. isnt this Trumps day 1 peace plan?
Click to expand...

That's what some think it is, but we haven't seen anything concrete laid out yet. The presumption is that Ukraine will simply stop fighting if US money is withheld, but that doesn't mean the EU or other NATO countries can't continue arming and supplying Ukraine. The EU controls several hundred billion in frozen Russian assets and can use that as collateral to continue arming Ukraine. The bottom line is that the Ukrainians shouldn't have to capitulate for a transgression that Putin started, so I suspect the war will continue until all resources have been expended.
 
Superden said:
followed by a demilitrised Ukraine and russia keeping the bits it likes / occupies. isnt this Trumps day 1 peace plan?
Click to expand...

If Ukraine loses and is demilitarized, they'll get Czechoslovakia'd in short order. It's not an option. The only Ukrainian loss that would be palatable would be one where they are fast-tracked into the EU (and NATO, but that isn't happening that scenario). But that's still a terrible loss.
 
nimic said:
If Ukraine loses and is demilitarized, they'll get Czechoslovakia'd in short order. It's not an option. The only Ukrainian loss that would be palatable would be one where they are fast-tracked into the EU (and NATO, but that isn't happening that scenario). But that's still a terrible loss.
Click to expand...
Id say the EU really needs to amp up their readiness even more than before. Out of all the major powers outside of it I cant think of a single one who wouldn't happily sacrifice them with the leaders in place, or about to be. Perhaps an overly dark view of the future but Europe risks being made redundant other than as a strategic staging ground or to control certain natural resources (or as an open air museum owned by Disney, Universal, etc...halfway serious with that one ofc).
 
Last edited:
Superden said:
almost all wars would end today, if actual moral considerations were put before financial ones.
is putin evil, yes. he has the blood of almost a million of his countrymen on his hands. are the west especially disingenuous about their approach to ukraine, of course they are, on one hand we issue sanctions, but on the other then do nothing to stop the Indians and other Brick nations going around them and keeping the russians afloat. and of course the 10s of billions being 'donated' to Ukraine, arent actually going to them, but lining the pockets of our own industrial-military complex.

much like turkey and israel. Erdogan can say what he likes, but hes quite happy to let the azerbaijanis supply israel with a decent chunk of their Oil (using turkish infrastructure).

reason i say this, it kind of makes arguments about the moral aspects moot.
Click to expand...
This is such a bizarre conclusion.
 
Raoul said:
I don’t deny that many Crimeans are amenable to Russia. I’ve been there and have spent a lot of time in southern Ukraine, and have a good sense of public sentiment in the area. That’s a far cry from invading Crimea and forcing locals into a referendum in which the option of “No” (Crimea should not become part of Russia) was NOT even an option. That’s why it’s internationally viewed as a sham, just like every election Putin has ever been involved in.
Click to expand...

Then again I agree with @DT12 in that there are double standards in your argumentation.

The CIA has influenced countless elections and coups around the globe during and after the Cold War so the free world and the US in particular cannot give lessons on how elections or referendums should be held.
 
Nani Nana said:
Then again I agree with @DT12 in that there are double standards in your argumentation.

The CIA has influenced countless elections and coups around the globe during and after the Cold War so the free world and the US in particular cannot give lessons on how elections or referendums should be held.
Click to expand...
You don't need to be some kind of a moral authority to realize that a "referendum" where "anonymous little green men" with guns are "keeping people safe" at every poll station (and the results themselves are counted without any independent observers) is not a good way to get an objective picture of people's wishes.

Did U.S. did the same in Asia and South America? Maybe not as blatantly (they usually used proxies) but yeah, of course, many times. Does it mean that Russia can do it too now (and somehow feel morally superior)? No, it's still illegal, morally wrong et cetera — and it's not, well, a referendum. The only thing it means is that U.S. had done a lot of horrible stuff over the course of XXth-XXIst centuries even though in this particular case they're ended up on the right side. This comes from someone who is pretty sure that Crimea in 2014 would probably choose to join Russia if given the choice through the actual procedure that is written in the international law (not that it's easy to implement or anything). I don't think that they were right in thinking so but a lot of Crimeans thought that joining Russia would be better for them. Yet Russia decided to annex it instead and to set up this farcical vote because it felt like it and Putin wanted his own chapter in future history books.
 
Nani Nana said:
Then again I agree with @DT12 in that there are double standards in your argumentation.

The CIA has influenced countless elections and coups around the globe during and after the Cold War so the free world and the US in particular cannot give lessons on how elections or referendums should be held.
Click to expand...

Double standards mean nothing in international relations. The fundamental unit of analysis is power; as in, powerful states have more leverage to do what they want and weak ones don't. In this case, Russia is more powerful than Ukraine militarily, but Ukraine is more powerful than Russia when its resources are underwritten by the US, NATO, and EU. Therefore, there's no way around the fundamental reality that Ukrainians are not only correct in wanting freedom and democracy, but their cause will eventually win out as long as other democratic nations rally behind them.

As for the referendum, only clown countries that support Putin's totalitarian dictatorship found it credible. The recent of the planet do not recognize it as legitimate.
 
nimic said:
If Ukraine loses and is demilitarized, they'll get Czechoslovakia'd in short order. It's not an option. The only Ukrainian loss that would be palatable would be one where they are fast-tracked into the EU (and NATO, but that isn't happening that scenario). But that's still a terrible loss.
Click to expand...
It's a frankly ridiculous assumption and I just can't understand why people are keeping pushing it.

First of all, the Czech Republic is a NATO member and secondly we're not in a videogame. There's absolutely zero benefit or incentive to invade and occupy a country whose population doesn't want you there. History taught us that it doesn't work. It never does, unless you kill all the natives. Russia's been there and done that during the Cold War. It got badly burned and the costs largely trumped any kind of benefit.

Russia absorbing Crimea without any trouble lies in the fact that a notable part of the local population was on board or at least not against it. Otherwise there'd be guerilla operations against the Russians every single day of the week.

The same applies to any fairy tale about Russia having the whole of Ukraine, Poland or the Baltic States on their menu. Or even more hilarious, the rest of Europe.
 
Last edited:
Raoul said:
Double standards mean nothing in international relations. The fundamental unit of analysis is power; as in, powerful states have more leverage to do what they want and weak ones don't. In this case, Russia is more powerful than Ukraine militarily, but Ukraine is more powerful than Russia when its resources are underwritten by the US, NATO, and EU. Therefore, there's no way around the fundamental reality that Ukrainians are not only correct in wanting freedom and democracy, but their cause will eventually win out as long as other democratic nations rally behind them.

As for the referendum, only clown countries that support Putin's totalitarian dictatorship found it credible. The recent of the planet do not recognize it as legitimate.
Click to expand...
If only you could extend these views to the Middle-East, especially Palestine.

Not gonna happen but one can dream.
 
Raoul said:
That's what some think it is, but we haven't seen anything concrete laid out yet. The presumption is that Ukraine will simply stop fighting if US money is withheld, but that doesn't mean the EU or other NATO countries can't continue arming and supplying Ukraine. The EU controls several hundred billion in frozen Russian assets and can use that as collateral to continue arming Ukraine. The bottom line is that the Ukrainians shouldn't have to capitulate for a transgression that Putin started, so I suspect the war will continue until all resources have been expended.
Click to expand...
Is Russia ever getting that money back?
Why not spend it now? Or is just that there isn’t enough military equipment to spend it on?
 
That_Bloke said:
It's a frankly ridiculous assumption and I just can't understand why people are keeping pushing it.

First of all, the Czech Republic is a NATO member and secondly we're not in a videogame. There's absolutely zero benefit or incentive to invade and occupy a country whose population doesn't want you there. History taught us that it doesn't work. It never does, unless you kill all the natives. Russia's been there and done that during the Cold War. It got badly burned and the costs largely trumped any kind of benefit.

Russia absorbing Crimea without any trouble lies in the fact a notable part of the local population was on board or at least not against it. Otherwise there'd be guerilla operations against the Russians every single day of the week.

The same applies to any fairy tale about Russia having the whole of Ukraine, Poland or the Baltic States on their menu. Or even more hilarious, the rest of Europe.
Click to expand...

What does the current Czechia being in NATO have to do with anything? I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying.

In any case, I think it's dangerously naive not to think Russia would grab all of Ukraine and the Baltic states if they could. Poland might be different, but those others were part of the Soviet Union not that long ago. It doesn't have to be a full annexation either. Hell, even Czechoslovakia wasn't technically annexed. I think it's pretty clear that the intention with the invasion was to grab the capital and force some kind of regime change, which would in effect leave Ukraine a puppet state of Russia. They would be just another Belarus, except probably even less independent.

What happens if Ukraine is forced into a peace which sees territorial gains losses to Russia and a forced demilitarisation? Why would Putin not just come back for seconds? They'd be a much easier target than the first time around, and it would in all likelihood just be a fait accompli for the West. There'd be no appetite in the West for further economic hardship over something that has already happened and would be irreversible without an invasion.
 
The Purley King said:
Is Russia ever getting that money back?
Why not spend it now? Or is just that there isn’t enough military equipment to spend it on?
Click to expand...
Seizing, rather than freezing money, is a really big deal. You don't take that step lightly.

There was a WSJ article which outlined Germany's concerns about a precedent and inspire new WW2 claims. Japan also has concerns about reparation claims. And the US has concerns that seizing the money could backfire against itself and allies such as Israel.

Then there's the argument that the assets can be used as leverage for negotiations.
 
Most of us are clear on the need to defeat Putin and stop his enlargement but Crimea is a really difficult one, obviously historically Russian until the 1950s. Maybe an internationally run referendums oblast by oblast ensuring that residents that fled the 2014 invasion have the right to participate. I don't know who in their right mind would want to live in Putins Russia instead of a democratic state with a path to EU membership but it's up to them.
 
VorZakone said:
Seizing, rather than freezing money, is a really big deal. You don't take that step lightly.

There was a WSJ article which outlined Germany's concerns about a precedent and inspire new WW2 claims. Japan also has concerns about reparation claims. And the US has concerns that seizing the money could backfire against itself and allies such as Israel.

Then there's the argument that the assets can be used as leverage for negotiations.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply will find that article.
I’m obviously oversimplifying but I’d just take the money and spend it. Probably why I don’t work in this area!
 
That_Bloke said:
It's a frankly ridiculous assumption and I just can't understand why people are keeping pushing it.

First of all, the Czech Republic is a NATO member and secondly we're not in a videogame. There's absolutely zero benefit or incentive to invade and occupy a country whose population doesn't want you there. History taught us that it doesn't work. It never does, unless you kill all the natives. Russia's been there and done that during the Cold War. It got badly burned and the costs largely trumped any kind of benefit.
Click to expand...
Wasn't it a reference to 1938, and Hitler coming back for the rest of Czechoslovakia after taking the Sudantenland ?
 
foolsgold said:
Most of us are clear on the need to defeat Putin and stop his enlargement but Crimea is a really difficult one, obviously historically Russian until the 1950s. Maybe an internationally run referendums oblast by oblast ensuring that residents that fled the 2014 invasion have the right to participate. I don't know who in their right mind would want to live in Putins Russia instead of a democratic state with a path to EU membership but it's up to them.
Click to expand...
The thing with Crimea is: did Russia not on several occasions agree to Ukraine's 1991 borders? Putin himself in 2008 said "Crimea is not disputed territory" and "Russia has long recognized the borders of modern-day Ukraine".

I mean, sure, there could have perhaps still been a referendum at some point. But if Putin didn't annex it in 2014, would we now be talking about Crimean secession?
 
nimic said:
What does the current Czechia being in NATO have to do with anything? I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying.

In any case, I think it's dangerously naive not to think Russia would grab all of Ukraine and the Baltic states if they could. Poland might be different, but those others were part of the Soviet Union not that long ago. It doesn't have to be a full annexation either. Hell, even Czechoslovakia wasn't technically annexed. I think it's pretty clear that the intention with the invasion was to grab the capital and force some kind of regime change, which would in effect leave Ukraine a puppet state of Russia. They would be just another Belarus, except probably even less independent.

What happens if Ukraine is forced into a peace which sees territorial gains losses to Russia and a forced demilitarisation? Why would Putin not just come back for seconds? They'd be a much easier target than the first time around, and it would in all likelihood just be a fait accompli for the West. There'd be no appetite in the West for further economic hardship over something that has already happened and would be irreversible without an invasion.
Click to expand...
Russia will never, ever be able to grab all of Ukraine. The last two years proved that it's militarily impossible. Russia just doesn't have the muscle and I doubt that it ever was their objective to begin with.

In 2022, everyone held Ukraine for dead food and pulled out. Until it mightily proved the contrary, even if Russia's main objective indeed was a regime change and not a total annexation. Puppet regimes are also a western specialty. Can't whine about it when you're suddenly on the receiving end.

The Baltic States are part of NATO, so unless Russia has a death wish, there's no chance in hell it would launch any attack against them or any European country. Again it's not a Hollywood movie where the baddies are just evil for the lulz. Russia has literally nothing to gain by attacking these states. On the contrary.

Ukraine's situation was an open question since 1991. There were assurances from the West which are on public record that NATO woudn't expand to the East in exchange for a peaceful dissolution of the USSR and the Iron Curtain. A Ukrainian NATO membership always was a red line for Russia. From their point of view, Ukraine has to be neutral, as the biggest invasions of Russia went through Ukraine. In the same way the US sees any foreign influence in the Western hemisphere as basically a casus belli (see Monroe Doctrine and the Cuba Crisis).

That's the gist of it. Russia will never relent until it knows for sure that Ukraine doesn't join NATO. It's a massive no-no for them. If it were to be translated in western terms, it would be comparable to Mexico signing an alliance with China and allowing the latter to build military bases on their soil. No way the US would tolerate it.

And unless NATO gets boots on Ukrainian ground, which would have good chances of a castastrophic escalation, Ukraine is going to lose this war.

Do I agree with this? Of course not. Ukraine has the right to choose its own path and its allies. That's what the right to self-determination engraved in the UN Charter is for.

But I refuse to give in this horseshit about Russia being hell-bent on reconquering either Europe or a part of it. It's utterly stupid, defies any kind of logic and an idiotic way to read the conflict.


foolsgold said:
Wasn't it a reference to 1938, and Hitler coming back for the rest of Czechoslovakia after taking the Sudantenland ?
Click to expand...
Anyone coming with WWII references and 1938 Munich is not to be taken seriously.
 
Last edited:
VorZakone said:
The thing with Crimea is: did Russia not on several occasions agree to Ukraine's 1991 borders? Putin himself in 2008 said "Crimea is not disputed territory" and "Russia has long recognized the borders of modern-day Ukraine".

I mean, sure, there could have perhaps still been a referendum at some point. But if Putin didn't annex it in 2014, would we now be talking about Crimean secession?
Click to expand...
All of these things yes, but ultimately all that matters is what the people of Crimea want.
 
That_Bloke said:
Anyone coming with WWII references and 1938 Munich is not to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...
Bold statement coming from someone who not only failed to recognise the reference (did you not realise Czechoslovakia doesn't exist anymore?), but who then proceeded to completely miss the entire point of the discussion, i.e. the hypothetical goal of demilitarisation. Do you suppose Ukraine was demilitarised in 2022? The reason they were able and remain able to somewhat repulse the Russian invasion is precisely because they have been  remilitarising since 2014.

After that most of your post was a long and boring refutation of things I hadn't said in the first place. I never said Russia was going to invade the Baltics - and I have no idea what this nonsense is supposed to contribute to the discussion:

Puppet regimes are also a western specialty. Can't whine about it when you're suddenly on the receiving end.
Click to expand...

I am not sure if all this is intentionally malicious or a result of poor reading comprehension, but your constant digs about "Hollywood evil baddies", "idiotic , utterly stupid" opinions or how history certainly never taught you anything - it all amounts to the same waste of time. On the ignore list you go.
 
nimic said:
Bold statement coming from someone who not only failed to recognise the reference (did you not realise Czechoslovakia doesn't exist anymore?), but who then proceeded to completely miss the entire point of the discussion, i.e. the hypothetical goal of demilitarisation. Do you suppose Ukraine was demilitarised in 2022? The reason they were able and remain able to somewhat repulse the Russian invasion is precisely because they have been  remilitarising since 2014.

After that most of your post was a long and boring refutation of things I hadn't said in the first place. I never said Russia was going to invade the Baltics - and I have no idea what this nonsense is supposed to contribute to the discussion:



I am not sure if all this is intentionally malicious or a result of poor reading comprehension, but your constant digs about "Hollywood evil baddies", "idiotic , utterly stupid" opinions or how history certainly never taught you anything - it all amounts to the same waste of time. On the ignore list you go.
Click to expand...
I'm full aware of the fact but thanks for the reminder.

It absolutely is.

The feeling's mutual.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:
That_Bloke said:
If only you could extend these views to the Middle-East, especially Palestine.

Not gonna happen but one can dream.
Click to expand...

It’s applicable anywhere around the world. In the case of the Middle East, Israel holds all the power, which for better or worse allows them to have a lopsided relationship with the Palestinians. Like Ukraine, their power is also underwritten by US support.
 
Raoul said:
It’s applicable anywhere around the world. In the case of the Middle East, Israel holds all the power, which for better or worse allows them to have a lopsided relationship with the Palestinians. Like Ukraine, their power is also underwritten by US support.
Click to expand...
Fair point.
 
That_Bloke said:
Russia will never, ever be able to grab all of Ukraine. The last two years proved that it's militarily impossible. Russia just doesn't have the muscle and I doubt that it ever was their objective to begin with.

In 2022, everyone held Ukraine for dead food and pulled out. Until it mightily proved the contrary, even if Russia's main objective indeed was a regime change and not a total annexation. Puppet regimes are also a western specialty. Can't whine about it when you're suddenly on the receiving end.

The Baltic States are part of NATO, so unless Russia has a death wish, there's no chance in hell it would launch any attack against them or any European country. Again it's not a Hollywood movie where the baddies are just evil for the lulz. Russia has literally nothing to gain by attacking these states. On the contrary.

Ukraine's situation was an open question since 1991. There were assurances from the West which are on public record that NATO woudn't expand to the East in exchange for a peaceful dissolution of the USSR and the Iron Curtain. A Ukrainian NATO membership always was a red line for Russia. From their point of view, Ukraine has to be neutral, as the biggest invasions of Russia went through Ukraine. In the same way the US sees any foreign influence in the Western hemisphere as basically a casus belli (see Monroe Doctrine and the Cuba Crisis).

That's the gist of it. Russia will never relent until it knows for sure that Ukraine doesn't join NATO. It's a massive no-no for them. If it were to be translated in western terms, it would be comparable to Mexico signing an alliance with China and allowing the latter to build military bases on their soil. No way the US would tolerate it.

And unless NATO gets boots on Ukrainian ground, which would have good chances of a castastrophic escalation, Ukraine is going to lose this war.

Do I agree with this? Of course not. Ukraine has the right to choose its own path and its allies. That's what the right to self-determination engraved in the UN Charter is for.

But I refuse to give in this horseshit about Russia being hell-bent on reconquering either Europe or a part of it. It's utterly stupid, defies any kind of logic and an idiotic way to read the conflict.



Anyone coming with WWII references and 1938 Munich is not to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

It's absolutely astounding how Russian propaganda manages to ensnare everyone.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

https://hls.harvard.edu/today/there-was-no-promise-not-to-enlarge-nato/

https://theconversation.com/ukraine...ato-promised-not-to-expand-to-the-east-177085

M.G.: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it.
Click to expand...

Gorbachev himself insists that at no point during negotiations, at any point, did the Soviet Union, or Warsaw Pact States, discuss NATO Expansion as even a topic...

Seriously, I odn't know why people still parrot this.
 
This thread is making me angry.

It's the equivalent of someone on the pavement watching someone start beating the shit out of someone else for very little reason, and then suddenly siding with the attacker because they didn't like the person who actually stepped in and helped the guy getting beat.

I don't give a feck about what the West did or did not do in their past, or their historical geopolitics or the crimes they have done in the past.

Ukraine is getting fecked over and all some of you seem to do is harp on about how hypocritical the west is. Who fecking cares? Hypocrisy or not, Ukraine is getting invaded and Ukraine is not part of the Western Bloc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.